Two Theological Arguments Against Neo-Ussherian (Young Earth) Creationism – Part 1

This article was also featured on the theistic evolution site God of Evolution!

(Okay, the title was a bit misleading. I’m only going to address the issue of death before the fall of man and not actually totally rebut the Neo-Ussherian hypothesis)


Did Christ die for the tigers?
Image Credit:

One of the common touch-points in discussing the age of the universe is the issue that the old earth hypothesis requires animal death to be in the world before the fall of man. The argument is often made by Neo-Ussherians (aka young earth creationists) that having animal death in the world before the fall of man is theologically unacceptable. I will attempt to demonstrate (via two arguments) that this is not the case and, in fact, it is the Neo-Ussherian position which is theologically problematic. First, I will present a deductive argument that leads to one of three conclusions: (a) animal death is incidental, (b) animals are included in the plan of salvation, or (c) Christ was not victorious over death. Second, I will present an inductive argument that aims to show the Scriptural data is more probable on the hypothesis that animal death is incidental. Finally, it is important to note the scope of these arguments. If they are completely valid and sound, they will not completely rebut the young earth hypothesis. The entire purpose is to demonstrate that the issue of animal death before the fall is not a substantial objection to the old earth hypothesis.

A Deductive Argument
If taken consistently, the common YEC position leads to some rather uncomfortable theology. Consider the following argument:

(1) All things that die in Adam have the potential to live in Christ
(2) Animals died in Adam
(3) Therefore, animals have the potential to live in Christ

Premise (1) comes directly from the language of 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Denying (1) will not be an option for a Bible-believing Christian. Since (3) follows logically (through modus ponens), the only controversial premise is (2). The common Old-Earth position is to deny (2) by saying that animal death is merely incidental; it didn’t come about through the fall nor is it a curse or anything like that. So, this argument is unsound. But, those who think that animal death is not incidental will have to come up with an alternative explanation or will have to embrace the fact that their theology allows animals to be included in the plan of salvation. (To my knowledge, there is only one organization that promotes this.)

The first response to this argument will be “Wait, that’s not right. Animals don’t have souls so they can’t be included in the plan of salvation or resurrected!” Of course, I agree with this sentiment. However, this response is equivalent to denying the conclusion of the argument. As the argument is valid, denying the conclusion without rebutting one of the premises is insufficient. For the sake of discussion, suppose that this were the case. Suppose that all the premises were true and yet animals were not resurrected or included in salvation. This presents an immensely awkward situation. Consulting 1 Corinthians again:

54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory?”

Remember, death is the last enemy to be defeated (1 Cor 15:26) and as demonstrated in verses 54-56, death is defeated in resurrection. These data can be summarized as follows:

(1) Death can only be defeated through resurrection
(2) Animal death exists
(3) Animals are not resurrected
(4) Therefore, animal death is not defeated
(5) Therefore, not all death is defeated

Wait a moment. Didn’t Christ ‘conquer death, hell, and the grave’? (Note: this wording is from a song, not actually in the Bible). If this is true, then how can Christ be victorious over death if the death of the animal kingdom is left undefeated? For those who hold that animal death is incidental, this isn’t a problem. Animal death isn’t the type of thing meant to be defeated and all the verses referring to the conquering of death refer exclusively to the death of humanity. This option isn’t available to those who think that animal death is a result of the fall or some kind of result of the curse. The only options at this juncture are to say that animals are included in salvation (and subsequently, resurrection) or admit that Christ was not entirely victorious over death.

“But wait!”, the non-incidentalist may say in an effort to split the horns of this dilemma, “this passages in 1 Corinthians are written to humans, not to animals. That means that all the death that’s being referenced has to be human death.” I would agree! The only problem here is that these passages (1 Corinthians 15, Romans 5, et cetera) are all written in the same form to human audiences. It’s been my experience that Neo-Ussherian, non-incidentalists point to the epistles as evidence for their position. But, recognizing all of the passages apply exclusively to humans effectively nullifies all the New Testament proof texts thought to concern animal death. Thus, there would be no textual justification for holding the position that animal death is non-incidental.

Now, consider the third option, that animal death is merely incidental. If this is true, then, none of the theological problems arise. All those that die in Adam are humans and there’s nothing controversial about humans being in the plan of salvation or being resurrected. If this is the case, then Christ is truly victorious over death as expressed in verses 56-57

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the connection between sin and death can be clearly understood if humans are the only party included. Non-human animals are not morally culpable creatures, meaning references to ‘sin’ are categorically erroneous. All in all, the hypothesis that animal death is incidental comes out as the most theologically acceptable position given all the considerations.

There are some implications to consider. Supposing this argument is completely valid and sound, it does not say how old the universe is. Saying that animal death is incidental is not inconsistent with also saying that the universe is young (i.e. 6,000 – 50,000 years old). What this argument does demonstrate is that animals dying before the fall is not a substantial objection to the view that the Earth and universe are old (i.e. 4.5 billion years for Earth, 14 billion years for the universe).

In Part 2, I will present an inductive (i.e. probability based) argument in favour of the incidental hypothesis.

Check out the forum for this blog on Facebook for discussion of these posts and any other topic you wish!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About caplawson

biomedical engineering // christian theism // texas a&m // molinism // coffee // ratio christi

10 responses to “Two Theological Arguments Against Neo-Ussherian (Young Earth) Creationism – Part 1”

  1. formerscientificcreationist says :

    Very intriguing post, Captain Lawson! I agree with you that animal death is incidental, at least as far as we are concerned. But, to the animals themselves, not-so-much. They might not think it so incidental. But, of course, because they have no words to discuss it or ability to comprehend it, we doubt that animals have any concept whatsoever of its meaning. So, in effect, we expect it really is incidental to them as well.

    Before diving in on some finer points, on a related note, I recently heard that Martin Luther was once asked if he believed that the lion will truly lie down with the lamb. Luther replied to the effect, “Yes, but you may have to throw in a new lamb occasionally”.

    All joking aside, philosophically, evil can be justified if it is part of a greater good. Ultimately, our hope is in that new heavens and a new Earth – part of the greater good that makes rational the existence of pain, suffering and evil in the eyes of a loving and all powerful Creator. This light and momentary suffering can’t be compared to the wait of eternal glory.

    Ro 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

    But, what about the animals? Do they endure pain and suffering just so we can have that eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison? Darwin actually held that the happiness of animals generally outweighed their suffering (see Episode 151 of the course, below). Or, is it also possible that all good dogs go to Heaven?

    Well, we’re not going to be able to address the whole theodicy (problem of pain) issue here (but see Episodes 193-201 of Lamoureux’s free college course on that topic) and I understand that your post focusses on the THEOLOGICAL issue of animal death.

    I’m addressing this question from the perspective of an evolutionary creationist (EC) with a PhD in a biological science who, after over 34 yrs as a staunch scientific creationist (YEC-> OEC ->ID Theory), became overwhelmingly convinced in 2010 by the new molecular evidence for evolution stemming from Human Genome Project. Accordingly, I place a premium on holding to modern science and have an evolutionary creation view (see Lamoureux course link below) and my comments are from what I understand of that perspective.

    First, I want to affirm that we (YECs, OECs, & ECs) all have the glorious gospel in common. We all agree on these key scriptural inerrant SPIRITUAL truths or messages of faith:

    • Humans are sinful (just look around (I only need to look in a mirror, BTW))
    • God judges humans for sin
    o Jesus died for sinful humans
    o Jesus rose physically from the dead
    o Jesus offers the hope of eternal life

    Where we’d differ is on the incidentals – e.g., such as exactly how sin & death got here.

    Hopefully, before I cause the hair on anyone’s neck to stand-up-on-end or heels to be dug-in, let me introduce a quote from our commonly respected and beloved Billy Graham that puts things in perspective:

    “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.” Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74

    The Scientific Data
    Zach, I assume you’d agree that any theology on this topic has to square with the reality of confirmed scientific evidence. I don’t think anyone can deny that some 98% of scientists hold it to be undeniable that the fossil record shows that animal death occurred for billions of years prior to any possible Adam coupled with a progression in at least functional complexity (earlier creatures did not have eyes, larger cranial capacity, etc.). Anatomically modern humans go back 200,000 yrs with behaviorally modern humans going back about 50,000 yrs (if one had to draw a line). Cranial capacity of hominids gradually increased over a several million year period up to recent times ( ).

    Christian Theology
    Before going further, I also need to disclaim that, while good theology is critical, I’m an armchair theologian and do not speak authoritatively on this topic. But, after about 38 years of searching on this topic, I am now fully persuaded by and do hold to as well as commend the theology of one who does, Denis O. Lamoureux DDS, PhD, PhD (see his credential and course described at ) Note, this really is more of an EXPLANATION that it is a plug for Denis’s course. So, please bear with me. How often do you encounter an expert in both the theology of Genesis 1-11 AND evolutionary biology? I know of no other. Yet, who would be best able to correctly interpret scripture in a two books model than someone who really knew both areas on a professional level? For qualifications, Denis has been educated to the PhD level in both the theology of Genesis 1-11 (plus! 2 Masters of Divinity from Regent College during its heyday with J.I. Packer and Bruce Waltke) AND a PhD in an area of evolutionary biology. What’s more, he’s a card carrying Evangelical who loves Jesus! See especially Episodes 181-192 that cover his position that Adam was not historical and what to do with Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15. Episodes 193-201 cover theodicy. I actually just finished these last episodes after going through the entire course. The course builds on itself so that’s how I would recommend approaching it. Don’t miss the associated hermeneutical principles. Note that Zondervan Publishing has a book, “Four View on the Historical Adam” coming out this fall/winter where Denis co-authors with his view, i.e., 1 of the 4. Additionally, under this heading, “Four View on the Historical Adam, Denis is presenting on this topic at the 65th annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Baltimore, MD beginning Nov. 19th. Hope to see you there…

    Also, for 3 years and hundreds of hours of study since my paradigm shift in 2010, I looked everywhere else first because my pastors (whom I have and still do count as very wise) did not prefer Lamoureux’s views. But, now I’m completely sold on it and am tremendously satisfied in my faith and the glorious gospel – a gospel that, once again, by the grace of God, I can’t think about the gospel without being moved to tears of soul satisfaction over the love of God. Unfortunately, relatively few Evangelicals have given his theology an adequate hearing and/or deny the scientific evidence. I can only hope to whet the reader’s appetite with a few thoughts.

    Lamoureux’s position would be that, not only is animal death is NOT due to man’s sin, but physical death in humans (while, nevertheless, ultimately an enemy that is addressed in the resurrection) is also NOT due to man’s sin. Spiritual death certainly is. But the reason Lamoureux, if I understand correctly, would say that physical death is not due to man’s sin is because the lost idyllic age was part of an INCIDENTAL ancient historiography to which God accommodated in order to communicate to an ancient people (Bible was written for us but NOT to us) inerrant messages of faith, i.e., mainly that man is sinful and God judges sin. Thus, the incidental lost idyllic age, along with the incidental ancient science, to which God also accommodated in the first chapters of Genesis for similar reasons, should be separated rather than conflated with the inerrant messages of faith, i.e., separate, don’t conflate. Thus, the first chapters of Genesis are spiritually concordant but not scientifically or historically concordant. Scripture interpreted this way is still very much held to be the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit and, we’d hold, inerrant in the spiritually concordant messages of faith that it communicates.

    So, I would agree with you that animal death is incidental. I just don’t think you are going far enough in identifying ALL the incidentals. There is also the long history of millions of years of hominid fossils to account for and, apparently, no evidence that there was ever a time in life’s history when man or man’s ancestors were not part of the circle of life and physical death.

    This line of thinking may come as a shock to most Evangelicals. I hesitate to share it above in a mere nutshell. For, compared to all the different convoluted scientific concordist interpretations (YEC, OEC and variations thereof) that I’ve tried, I find Denis Lamoureux’s non-concordist interpretation to be both coherent and Occam’s-razor-simple. When I first heard it after 2 ½ years of intense theological study since my paradigm shift in 2010 while trying to make the first chapters of Genesis fit with the scientific data, I literally exclaimed, “That’s gotta be it!”. It was a eureka moment for me. However, thousands of years of scientific concordist interpretation in the church won’t go away overnight. And, if we didn’t learn our lesson from the Galileo affair, how are we going to learn it now without the careful building of a case and buttressing of arguments that Lamoureux, fortunately, provides in his online college course? But, how many will take the time to hear it and approach it carefully? It is well worth the effort! Don’t have time for the full course, then check out the total 3hrs of talks at that offers a good introduction.

    It may not be the way we like to think of interpreting scripture. I would have liked it better if God revealed modern science to an ancient people in a scientific concordist way. That would make it easier to prove God’s existence and easier just to conflate everything. But, God didn’t consult me on that one. And, besides, God isn’t supposed to be proved. That was a tough one to die to.

    The Problem of Pain (theodicy)
    The Lamoureux course also has a great section (Episodes 193-201) on the Problem of Pain. Let me just add just these thoughts:

    A. The ability to feel physical pain is good.
    Here is a rather slam dunk argument that, generally speaking, in a physical world, physical pain is good, even though it may not feel that way at the time. Yet, don’t you wish that you were immune to feeling any pain? Wouldn’t that be great!?! Or would it? Consider the case of a young girl with a rare genetic disease who could feel NO pain.

    “Rare disease makes girl unable to feel pain” – Health – Children’s health | NBC News
    “Some people would say that’s a good thing. But no, it’s not,” says Tara Blocker, Ashlyn’s mother. “Pain’s there for a reason. It lets your body know something’s wrong and it needs to be fixed. I’d give anything for her to feel pain.”
    “I’d give anything for her to feel pain”, I think says a mouth-full about physical pain.
    Soon after I read this, I was sharpening some knives using a grinder. Instant pain, as my knuckle brushed up against the opposite grinder, resulted in an instant recoil of my arm. I complained even though I came away with a small abrasion. Then I remembered that alternative with no loud pain (focused in my work, I might not have responded to merely mild pain) could have been the loss of a finger.

    At worst, physical pain it is a necessary evil, which is another way of saying that is it a good, in general. Of course, there are those times when it gets out of hand and it seems unbearable in sickness. But, I think that is a case of having to accept the bad with the greater good of having the ability to feel pain and know when something is wrong.

    B. Death is a Necessary Evil for New Life and the Ability to Adapt
    • Planet would soon literally fill-up with living creatures
    • If you do the math, every square foot of land on Earth would have a person in it in only 1,530 years starting from 2 individuals, assuming no death, all marry, and 2 kids every 30 years. And that is just for people. If we did bunny rabbits, it would be far less.
    • No cycle of life & death means no changing genes and, therefore, NO adaptation to changing environments. How would you like to life forever on this planet as the environment changes to something inhospitable and you have no way to adapt, genetically?

    C. Life Without Physical Death Makes No Sense for God if His Goal is to Maximize Sons & Daughters for God (in Hebrews 2:10 sense).
    • If you do the math, since 8,000 BC, 7 times as many people (107 billion) are estimated to have lived on Earth as the Earth can sustain at any one time (~16 billion seems to be the consensus), assuming no death.

    This is not to say that physical death is not an enemy. The resurrection shows that it is. But, spiritual death is or was the real enemy. Through the cross, even physical death has been defeated as we have the promise of a similar resurrection.


  2. Remington says :

    This is a very odd way to attempt to argue because you don’t demonstrate that 1 Cor 15 is actually teaching premise (1)–in fact you later say that you think it isn’t–and you don’t give any argument for why a YEC has to believe 1 Cor. 15 is teaching premise (1).

    So the argument relies upon a spurious understanding of 1 Cor. 15, which you yourself reject, and you give no argument as to why a YEC must understand the text in your admitted spurious sense. But your use of the text isn’t just spurious insofar as it’s talking about mankind. It’s spurious in that the text simply doesn’t support the idea that all who die in Adam have the potential to be made alive in Christ. The text says that all who are in Christ will be made alive, and this is similar to how all who were in Adam die. The idea that the text indicates something about the potential of every individual in Adam is just a non-sequitur.

    Furthermore, your attempt to cut off the YEC from splitting the horns of the dilemma (1) is extremely weak exegetically (you can’t just point to the audience being human to determine the scope of a passage) and (2) fails to account for how YEC have actually argued for the incompatibility of death and OEC, which is not merely based on a reading of Rom. 5 but on broader theological principles as well as human intuitions (which OEC themselves often concede). For instance, see the arguments developed by YEC Stephen Lloyd.

    • caplawson says :

      Hi, Remington. Thanks for the critique. I am currently working on a reformulation of this argument, so, I won’t respond to everything here.

      I am not sure where I denied (1) in the article; it was (2) that I expressly denied. The argument accepts (1) and posits that the only things that die in Adam are humans.

      The more I have thought on this, the less confident I have been in how (1) is derived. It starts with v 22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”. When I wrote the argument, I took v 22 to mean “all die in Adam” as opposed to “all that die in Adam”. Also, the YECs with whom I have interacted also endorsed this reading. However, I am thinking that this was dealt with much too hastily. The main point is defining the limits of Jesus’s role as the Second Adam. It seems that the scope of Jesus’s work must be at least the same as the scope of Adam’s work. Moreover, Jesus and Adam seem to be connected to their respective parties via covenant which doesn’t seem to be the kind of relationship an animal can participate in. Even if we keep the questionable interpretation, 1 Cor 15 alone isn’t enough to bear the weight of these considerations; this is a larger topic that deserves considerable more attention (which I will do in future iterations).

      In regards to preventing horn splitting: The response I give is weak because the objection I raised is weak. This is an actual objection that comes up in my discussions and the response is consistent. If the objector says “this is in an epistle, therefore it’s only about humans”, then, it’s consistent to apply that to Romans 5. I did overstate the conclusion; it doesn’t nullify all NT textual warrant but it does undercut the support derived from the epistles.

      I am familiar with Stephen Lloyd; in Part 2 of this argument, I cite his debate with Hugh Ross and Ken Samples. In fact, his comment was what inspired me to start thinking about this issue. From what I understand, his argument is that Adam brought physical death into the world and if he didn’t, then the crucifixion would be unnecessary. I think his error is equivocating on physical death, human death, and animal death. Moreover, if the crucifixion is meant to be connected with animal death, it seems Christ did die for the tigers as I quip in the picture comment. I bet that Lloyd has more detailed/nuanced formulations than what he presented in the debate; would you have any recommendations for me to read?

      • Remington says :

        I am not sure where I denied (1) in the article; it was (2) that I expressly denied. The argument accepts (1) and posits that the only things that die in Adam are humans.<<

        So the argument is this?:

        All things that die in Adam have the potential to live in Christ
        Animals are part of the all that died in Adam
        Therefore, animals have the potential to live in Christ

        In other words, 2 is an explanation of what is included in the all of premise 1. But if you are only denying 2, then you’re denying what was implicit or intended to be implicit in 1 in order to get to 3. So what you are left with is:

        1*. All humans that die in Adam have the potential to live in Christ.

        In other words, if 2 is supposed to be an implication of 1, then you can’t really deny 2 without altering 1.

        In regards to preventing horn splitting: The response I give is weak because the objection I raised is weak. This is an actual objection that comes up in my discussions and the response is consistent.<<

        To be upfront with you, I’m skeptical that people have in fact reasoned the way you claim. Do you have an online conversation you can point me to where YEC have said the scope of the claim in 1 Cor. is humanity, because 1 Cor. is an epistle?

        But let’s assume that some people do say all claims in 1 Cor are limited to humans since 1 Cor is an epistle. Surely you can imagine that this is not the only way to “split the horns”. And if you really want a good argument against YEC, that means attacking more than its weakest possible representation.

        For instance, one could claim that both 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 5 are limited to humans, but that that animal death is a result of the fall for other reasons (e.g., those Lloyd gives). Or one could give independent reasons for thinking Romans 5 includes animal death but 1 Cor. 15 does not.

        You mention that you address Lloyd’s argument in part 2, which I haven’t read yet. So I guess I’ll have to take a look at that. For the record, I don’t recall being totally convinced by Lloyd myself, but he at least attempts to present a way to “split the horns” that you didn’t address in part 1, which is why I mentioned him.

        In addition to that the following should be pointed out:

        YEC is entirely consistent with animal death prior to the fall. One is not logically dependent upon the other. Thus, rebutting the argument for animal death does not provide any sort of defeater to YEC. In the beginning of your post you acknowledge that “the title was a bit misleading” and say that you “will not completely rebut the young earth hypothesis”. But it should be pointed out that you aren’t rebutting anything essential to YEC per se. Rather, you’re rebutting what some YEC believe, incidentally, and you’re rebutting an argument often used by YEC against OEC.

        That is, YEC is consistent with both positions (animals died prior to the fall/did not die prior to the fall). And I suppose when it comes down to it, OEC is also consistent with either supposition too.

        • caplawson says :

          Ah, I see what you’re saying with (1). What (1) states is that every entity that “dies in Adam” can “live in Christ”. This statement is neutral as to what entities are capable of dying in Adam. What (2) states is that animals are not the kinds of entities that would fit the bill. Even if one accepts that humans are the only entities, that doesn’t undercut the truth of (1). It just means (1*) is logically equivalent. The scope here is just that whatever you think a dying-in-Adam thing is, it’s not an animal. As a parallel, one could say (O) “All things that are omniscient know the future”. Even if you posit God as the only omniscient thing, (O) is still true without qualification.

          As for YECs who argue the audience excludes animals, the more precise view is that v 22 is interpreted “all (of you) who died in Adam, (you) will live in Christ”. Rather than making universal claims, Paul was speaking to the Corinthians (or maybe the body of Christ) specifically. Other than cropping up once on a Facebook thread about 2 years ago, I haven’t engaged this topic online. Also, I totally recognize that this isn’t the only way to split the horns. I’ve shared this with several YEC groups to get a variety responses. The general trend is that any way to split the horns of the dilemma ultimately undercuts the NT support for non-incidentalism. I want stronger objections; this is a mostly original idea and I want to hammer it out.

          As for the titling, this is best viewed as a rebuttal to “OEC is false because animal death” which is what I say in the last sentence: What this argument does demonstrate is that animals dying before the fall is not a substantial objection to the view that the Earth and universe are old. I’m thinking of renaming it “The Incidental Defense” or “The Problem of Animal Death and How Non-Incidentilism Doesn’t Solve It”.

          • Remington says :

            Thanks for the clarification (1). I still don’t see that (1) has any support from 1 Cor. 15:20-28. The passage draws an analogy between those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ. Suppose I said “Just as all those who win events at the olympics receive medals, so all those who finish the Christian-race receive a crown of life.” Does my analogy teach you anything about the potentiality of olympic medalists to receive the crown of life? No. You may think all olympic medalists have the potential to receive the crown of life, and you may be correct, but you won’t get that from my analogy. The point being we have no reason, from the text, to think all who are in Adam can be in Christ. At best, one might say the overall context demands that some who are in Adam be potentially in Christ. But the “some” presents a problem for the argument concerning animals.

            As for YECs who argue the audience excludes animals, the more precise view is that v 22 is interpreted “all (of you) who died in Adam, (you) will live in Christ”.

            Here is another common way of understanding the passage: “For as (those who are) in Adam all die, so also (those who are) in Christ shall be made alive.”

            This understanding won’t give us any problem with animals being alive in Christ (and potentiality isn’t in view). And it doesn’t carry any implication for how we must interpret Romans 5:12ff.

      • Remington says :

        I bet that Lloyd has more detailed/nuanced formulations than what he presented in the debate; would you have any recommendations for me to read?

        As far as reading goes, no. But Lloyd has given other talks on this topic which spell out his argument in more detail. It’s been a few years since I heard them (around the time I covered the Lloyd/Ross/Samples/Other guy debate). I don’t remember how I got ahold of them, but you might be able to find them if you start here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: